Skip to main content
search
Tag

subsidies

Dec 20

Climate Dogma Killed Biden’s “Build Back Better”

By General Posts

by Michael Shellenberger

A half trillion dollars to subsidize renewables would have raised energy prices, worsened inflation, and undermined decarbonization. But what do we do now?

The centerpiece of President Joe Biden’s legislative agenda is dead. Senator Joe Manchin today announced that he could not support Biden’s “Build Back Better” legislation which consisted of $1.7 trillion in new spending and would have added $158 billion to the national debt over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The largest component of spending, $570 billion, was for renewables, electric cars, and other climate change investments.

Progressives, environmentalists, and Democrats are furious with Sen. Manchin, but it was their own climate and renewables dogmatism that doomed the legislation. Democratic Senators could have written legislation that expanded nuclear energy and natural gas, the two main drivers of decarbonization, which are strongly supported by Manchin, and Republicans, but instead investments went overwhelmingly to solar panels, wind turbines, and electric cars.

It’s true that there were good things in Build Back Better, and that one of the worst climate provisions, the Clean Energy Performance Program, was already removed. Build Back Better included a tax credit for existing nuclear power plants, funding for advanced nuclear fuels, funding for fusion R&D, and financial support for communities hurt by the transition to renewables.

But the money for nuclear would not have made much if any difference to the operating of nuclear plans. Nuclear plants in California, Massachusetts and New York are being shut down, despite already being profitable, for ideological reasons. Legislatures in less anti-nuclear states like Illinois, New Jersey, and Connecticult step in to save their plants when they need to. And higher electricity prices due to natural gas shortages are making nuclear plants in other states even more profitable.

Of Build Back Better’s $550 billion for climate and energy, the vast majority of it was for weather-dependent renewables and their enabling infrastructure, including $29 billion for a “green bank” program to finance renewables and $10 billion for rural electric cooperatives to switch to renewables. Such subsidies were being offered despite years of false claims by many of the legislation’s sponsors and advocates that solar and wind were already cheaper than grid electricity.

Most dangerously, Build Back Better would have undermined electricity reliability, raised energy prices, and made the U.S. more dependent on foreign energy imports. Over-reliance on weather-dependent renewables in Texas and California, and under-investment in reliable, weather-independent nuclear and natural gas plants, led directly to deadly blackouts in those states.

I testified as much to this problem to Manchin’s Senate Commitee on Energy and Natural Resources, and Sen. Manchin made clear today that the role of renewables in making electricity expensive and unreliable was one of his top concerns. “The main thing that we need is dependability and reliability,” he said this morning. “If not, you’ll have what happened in Texas and California.” In his statement, Manchin said, “If enacted, the bill will also risk the reliability of our electric grid and increase our dependence on foreign supply chains.”

Adding weather-dependent energy sources can only make grids more resilient if significantly more money is spent maintaining reliable power sources to make up for their lost revenue and lost operation hours. That’s what Germany has done, deciding to burn more coal rather than continue operating its nuclear plants, which it’s shutting down, or rely too heavily on imported natural gas.

Manchin is also right that Build Back Better would increase dependence on energy imports. Over 80% of the world’s solar panels are made in China by incarcerated Uighyr Muslims living in concentration camps and against whom the Chinese government is committing “genocide,” according to the U.S. State Department.

Build Back Better contained incentives for the return of solar manufacturing to the U.S., but they were far too small to compete with solar panels made by incarcerated people in China’s already-built and heavily-subsidized mega-factories. Nor did they deal with the coming solar panel waste crisis.

“We have been energy independent for the first time for the first time in 60, 70 years or more,” noted Manchin, “and we should not have to depend on other parts of the world to give us the energy, or be able to hold us hostage for the energy, or the foreign supply chains that we need for the products we need every day.”

Everywhere in the world that solar and wind are deployed at scale they increase electricity prices dramatically. California increased its electricity prices seven times more than the rest of the U.S. over the last decade. Germany has the highest electricity prices in Europe, and is breaking new records with the energy shortage caused by lack of adequate natural gas supplies globally.

And now the entire world is paying the price of climate alarmism and renewables dogmatism. Climate shareholder activism and the ESG “sustainable” investment movement caused governments and private sector actors to underinvest in oil and gas production and over-invest in weather-dependent renewables. The result is historic shortages of natural gas and oil.

For the last several weeks Europen and Asian nations have been breaking records for the cost of electricity, due to shortages of natural gas supplies. Oil prices are set to rise to $125 per barrel next year and $150 in 2023, and U.S. winter natural gas prices will be 30% higher this year. Even nuclear-heavy France, which became over-invested in renewables and natural gas, and under-invested in nuclear, is seeing record electricity prices.

But what then, does it mean for climate change? And what should be done to safeguard American energy supplies going forward?

Dec 12

Energy Poverty Kills

By General Posts

From Center for Industrial Progress by Alex Epstein

Last week we looked at the need for a process of producing energy that is cheap, plentiful, and reliable—and we saw that solar and wind cannot produce cheap, reliable energy.

How Germany embraced solar and wind and ended up in energy poverty

Let’s take a look at this in practice. Germany is considered by some to be the best success story in the world of effective solar and wind use, and you’ll often hear that they get a large percentage of their energy from solar and wind.

You can see here on this chart how this claim was made and why it’s not accurate.

First of all, this is just a chart of electricity. Solar and wind are only producing electricity and half of Germany’s energy needs also include fuel and heating. So solar and wind never contribute half as much to Germany’s energy needs as this chart would imply.

But that’s not the biggest problem. What you notice here is that there’s certain days and times where there are large spikes, but there are also periods where there’s relatively little. What that means is that you can’t rely on solar and wind ever. You always have to have an infrastructure that can produce all of your electricity independent of the solar and wind because you can always go a long period with very little solar and wind.

So then why are the solar and wind necessary? Well, you could argue that they’re not and that adding them onto the grid will impose a lot of costs.

In Germany, electricity prices have more than doubled since 2000 when solar and wind started receiving massive subsidies and favorable regulations, and their electricity prices are three to four times what we would pay in the U.S. (Because of its low reliability, solar, and wind energy options require an alternative backup—one that’s cheap, plentiful, and reliable—to make it work, thus creating a more expensive and inefficient process.)

Nuclear and hydro

Fossil fuels are not the only reliable sources. There are two others that don’t generate CO2 that are significant and are more limited, but still significant contributors. Those are hydroelectric energy and nuclear energy.

Hydroelectric energy can be quite affordable over time, but it’s limited to locations where you have the right physical situation to produce hydroelectric power.

Nuclear is more interesting because nuclear doesn’t have the problems of hydro but it’s been very restricted throughout history so today in the vast majority of cases it’s considerably more expensive than say electricity from natural gas. This may change in the future and one thing we’ll discuss under policy is how we need to have the right policies so that all energy technologies can grow and flourish, if indeed the creators of those technologies can do it.

The reality of energy poverty: a story

To illustrate just how important it is to have cheap, plentiful, and reliable energy, I want to share a story I came across while doing research for my book, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. This is a story about a baby born in the very poor country of Gambia.

The baby was born underweight and premature, but not in such a way that would be a big problem in say, the United States. In the United States, the solution would have been obvious: incubation. This technology would almost certainly bring this baby up to be completely healthy, and if you met the baby later in life you would never know that there had ever been a problem.

Unfortunately, in the Gambia, in this particular hospital, they needed something that billions of people in the world do not have, and that is reliable electricity.

Without reliable electricity, the hospital didn’t even contemplate owning an incubator, the one thing this baby desperately needed to survive.

Without access to this technology, the baby could not survive on her own, and sadly, she died. I think this story reminds us of what it means to have access to cheap, plentiful, and reliable energy, and how having more energy gives us the ability to improve our lives.

To summarize what we discussed, if you can’t afford energy you don’t have energy, and if energy is scarce or unreliable, then you don’t have energy when you need it. It’s not just enough to have energy, the energy and the process to create it has to be cheap, plentiful, and reliable.

Jul 17

Zero FXE launched: Review and Details

By General Posts

by Andrew Cherney from https://www.cycleworld.com

The brand’s sleekest and most fun ebike yet. The lightweight, agile FXE is a new addition to Zero’s 2022 lineup.

  • In a segment full of either high-priced, tech-heavy options or cheap flimsy junk, the FXE is a step in the right direction, especially for commuters not too concerned with range. It’s also a ton of fun.
  • The design adds a minimal, supermoto style onto the existing FX platform for a more modern, updated feel.
  • Steel frame holds the tried-and-true ZF 75-5 air-cooled motor in the FXE, rated at 46 hp. The 7.2kWh battery is not removable.
  • Certain design elements like the front headlight design (an LED) and “beak” got carried over directly from the Huge Design concept bike.
  • The bike’s light weight and short wheelbase make it easy to work turns, with good lean angle and sticky Pirelli tires aiding in your attack. You can drag the kickstand if you’re super aggressive though.
  • The relaxed, commuter-friendly riding position is even more upright than the SR/F’s but it makes for a comfy perch (except at higher speeds).
  • You’ll find the Cypher II operating system on the FXE displayed on a new 5-inch TFT screen, giving various ride modes and bike data. Pair your phone with the app to tailor them and get more detailed info.
  • Stylish cast wheels hold grippy Pirelli Diablo Rosso II tires, which upped our confidence in deeper high-speed turns.
  • The rear Showa monoshock delivers nearly 8 inches of travel for an impressively stable ride.
  • Inverted Showa fork is adjustable. J.Juan brakes offer excellent feel and good stopping power, and ABS can be turned off.

2022 Zero FXE Specifications
MSRP: $11,795
Motor: ZF 75-5 air-cooled IPM motor
Battery: 7.2kWh (max capacity) lithium-ion integrated battery
Charger type: 650W integrated
Charge time: 9.7 hours to 100% w/ standard 110V or 220V input
Claimed Range: 60 miles highway, 100 miles city, 75 miles combined
Claimed Peak power: 46 hp @ 3,500 rpm
Claimed Peak torque: 78 lb.-ft.
Top speed: 85 mph
Transmission: Clutchless direct drive
Final Drive: Carbon belt
Frame: Steel trellis
Front Suspension: 41mm inverted Showa fork, spring preload, compression and rebound damping adjustable; 7.0 in. travel
Rear Suspension: Showa 40mm piston monoshock, spring preload, compression and rebound damping adjustable; 8.9 in. travel
Front Brake: 1-piston J.Juan floating caliper, 320mm disc w/ Bosch Gen 9 ABS
Rear Brake: 1-piston J.Juan floating caliper, 240mm disc w/ Bosch Gen 9 ABS
Wheels, Front/Rear: Cast alloy; 17 x 3 in. / 17 x 3.5 in.
Tires, Front/Rear: Pirelli Diablo Rosso II; 110/70-17 / 140/70-17
Rake/Trail: 24.4°/2.8 in.
Wheelbase: 56.0 in.
Seat Height: 32.9 in.
Claimed Curb Weight: 299 lb.
Standard warranty: 2 years
Contact: zeromotorcycles.com

Conventional wisdom says there will be more EVs on the street within the next five to 10 years, and our urban roadscape will look a lot different than it does now. But conventional wisdom usually skips over the equally important notion that attracting riders means you have to innovate while also being sensitive to price, particularly in the electric space. Zero seems to be tackling those talking points, at least partially, with the reveal of the new 2022 FXE, a compact and affordable supermoto-styled commuter machine it’s billing as “the motorcycle of tomorrow, available today.”

Building the bike of tomorrow is a tall order, even for an electric motorcycle manufacturer, but when Zero took the wraps off its new machine last month near the firm’s HQ in Santa Cruz, California, our group of assorted moto scribes nodded. Here indeed was a very different looking electric bike—especially for the sometimes dowdy two-wheel electric space. And yet a mind-blowing revelation it was not, especially if you’re looking at the spec sheet alone. From a design standpoint, the slim, starkly modern supermoto-styled machine felt instantly appealing—even if it looked an awful lot like a deconstructed riff on the WR450, or more accurately, a close cousin of the brand’s already supermoto-y FXS model. But how would it hold up on the street?

n the FXE’s case, form did not have to follow function—or not as rigorously as previous models, which adopted more familiar shapes to make them appealing to the general public, according to Zero. But now, says VP of Product Development Brian Wismann, the consumer is ready for updated designs, which explains why the FXE, a model based on a concept collaboration with Huge Design back in 2019, is here. Although it’s built on the brand’s existing FX platform, the partnership with Huge introduced a completely new design language, informed mainly by stripped-down panels of bodywork. (The concept bike was in fact built on an FXS model, and you can see the similarities.) On the FXE, the so-called essential surfaces—seats, body panels, touch points—are intended to look like they’re floating over the chassis. The distinctive styling radiates modern industrial design aesthetics, while “celebrating the electric drivetrain” says Wismann.

When we sidled up to the FXE at a secret staging location outside of town—Zero shrewdly had us ride older SR/Fs and SR/Ss to where the new bikes were stashed—we were struck by just how approachable the profile was. A sane seat height welcomed even the shorties in the bunch, with the 32.9-inch perch making for easy access and a riding position similar to that of a dirt bike, not super aggressive but sitting atop the slightly dished, mostly flat seat, with a fairly short reach to the tallish bars. Mid-mounted pegs were ideally located, not too far forward or rearward, providing an upright stance in the saddle—even more than the SR/F I had just gotten off of. The compact body panels make for a clean look, though they did splay outward from below the faux fuel tank, pushing my knees out into the wind. They basically made it impossible to grip the tank as you normally might, but it was more minor inconvenience than any real annoyance.

With the ergonomics checking out, I put the FXE into Sport mode and let ‘er rip. Even though I sort of knew what to expect, the instant torque pop of an electric motor never fails to put a big grin on your face. Yes, 46 horses might not sound like much, but the eerily silent power pulse from the air-cooled ZF 75-5 motor is more than enough to turn your head, especially in its immediacy; the throttle felt far more responsive than the SR/F we had just ridden, possibly because the FXE’s substantially smaller mass and less unsprung weight made for quicker power transfer. With its narrow waist and short wheelbase, I found I could easily push the FXE into and through even the harshest decreasing-radius turns we tackled among the Santa Cruz redwoods. The bike did not fight me on quick transitions as much as expected, with the sticky Pirellis giving me all kinds of confidence throughout a half-day stint in mountain twisties. And with no need to worry about shifting, you’re free to focus on the next apex. Or to just blast to the 85-mph top speed, which I did whenever we hit a straight stretch of road. Why not, right?

Zero also outfitted the FXE with its now-familiar J.Juan brakes and bolstered by a Bosch ABS system, so stops were also a stress-free affair, with easy lever pull giving a strong bite and solid stopping power and almost no fade. (ABS can be turned off as well.) With 7 inches of travel, the inverted, adjustable Showa fork soaked up almost every road deformity we came across (except for one unexpected curb hop) staying composed even in truly harsh divots. Holding the line out back is an equally resilient—and adjustable—Showa monoshock that tracked solidly throughout our short ride.

As with the FX, the FXE also leverages Zero’s Cypher II operating system, which here is married to a new 5-inch optically bonded TFT display that proved bright and easy to read. You can access ride modes—it comes preprogrammed with Eco and Sport—and tailor torque, speed, and brake regeneration from the free Zero app, which also gives you insight to battery status. We can’t speak to range, given our short ride day—Zero claims 100 miles of city riding from the 7.2kWh (peak) battery, with 60 miles of range claimed on the highway, at 55 mph. The display screen showed less than 20 percent of charge remaining after our 50-mile stint, which was a mix of high- and low-speed scenarios, and that feels fairly close to the claim. According to Zero, the onboard 650W charger will top off the battery in 9.7 hours off a standard household socket; a rapid charger available for additional cost will do the job in a little more than 3 hours.

In sum, we’re not entirely buying the “bike of tomorrow” tagline, but the FXE does manage to serve up a grin-inducing blend of instant acceleration, flickability, and easy steering. Perhaps even more tantalizing is the sub-$10K price tag; yes, you’re getting a somewhat short range bike, but at least that obstacle is being somewhat addressed. Of course that sub-10K number rings true only once you tally in the federal and California EV tax credits, but hey, $10K is $10K.

Considering H-D’s lowest priced electric offering, the just-released LiveWire One, runs upward of $20K, and any bike called Lightning, Energica, Tarform, or Damon is well north of there, you’ve gotta hand it to Zero for compiling a portfolio of four models priced under $12K, all coming with a warranty and dealer support.

The dual sport FX sits at $11,595, the entry-level FXS is at $11,295, the naked S is priced at $10,995, and now the FXE at $11,795. All four either are or can be configured with the ZF 7.2 powertrain, which, granted, is not the fastest or most top-of-the-line offering, but it does help make the FXE one of the most affordable models in the Zero line.

You can check it out yourself at some of the upcoming stops of the IMS tour (starting with Sonoma Raceway on July 16) and bikes should be in dealers later this month as well.